| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Rendelius
Critical Error
Joined: 06 Jul 2001
Posts: 16
Location: Austria |
| Ekim's Gamer View: Who's Game is it? |
|
<blockquote><em>"Let’s tackle a delicate issue. All games are bought, mostly off of store shelves, some online and through delivery. The player that forked out his money to buy this game he saw on the store shelf or in an online catalogue considers this box to be his own, and no one else’s. Whatever is inside the box, whatever the game contains, it is now his. But to what extent is this game truly his?"</em></blockquote>
<br>This is how Ekim starts his Gamer View today. <a href="http://www.rpgdot.com/index.php?hsaction=10053&ID=540"´>"Who's game is it?"</a> is the title of his editorial, and once again, it is an interesting article to read for sure. Follow our link and enjoy. |
Fri Mar 14, 2003 10:48 pm |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
While I agree in substance with everything Ekim has written, he has to some extent committed the fallacy of faulty analogy. There is one major difference between a game and either a film or a book. With the latter, you are a passive participant, with a game, you're not. I AM my character, his/her story is my story. I'm not simple watching a character on a screen, or reading about him/her, I'm living the role of that person. This more personal involvement in a game, is the reason we are so possessive. In that sense, it is MY game!!
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Fri Mar 14, 2003 10:54 pm |
|
|
Ekim
Eagle's Shadow
Joined: 27 May 2002
Posts: 2365
Location: Montreal, Canada |
quote:
Originally posted by corwin
While I agree in substance with everything Ekim has written, he has to some extent committed the fallacy of faulty analogy. There is one major difference between a game and either a film or a book. With the latter, you are a passive participant, with a game, you're not. I AM my character, his/her story is my story. I'm not simple watching a character on a screen, or reading about him/her, I'm living the role of that person. This more personal involvement in a game, is the reason we are so possessive. In that sense, it is MY game!!
You might be right, I won't argue  But what I was trying to compare is the ownership of a Vision, which in my mind isn't that much different in games than it is for films that have a major fan-base like Star Wars or LotR. My point is that some people would just look superficially at a game and decide that it isn't what they would have made it, and so criticize the game for it. They don't typically take the time to play it enough to "own" the game before they do that.
And although I agree that the analogy seems a bit weak, I still stand by it because it illustrates what I want to say. The Vision behind a movie is still very much like that of a game at its very bare essential.
_________________
=Proud Father of a new gamer GIRL!=
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Worshiper of the Written Word= |
|
Fri Mar 14, 2003 11:27 pm |
|
|
TheMadGamer
High Emperor
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 487
Location: Southern California |
I agree with your article Ekim.
The short version of the same argument, which I have posted many MANY times on game forums is that a game should be judged by its own merits, not by the expectations of the gaming community.
It's forgivable (though still irritating) when commentary lines are crossed by over anxious gamers on message boards. But it's unforgivable when a so-called 'reviewer' representing a 'professional gaming site' does the same thing.
I just read a review today about a CRPG in which the reviewer started off by saying, 'I'm really a FPS enthusiest, but because of... [yada yada yada]... I found myself reviewing this game [CRPG]...'
And as the reviewer proceeds on with the review, he (or she) begins forcing his FPS visions and highlights how gameplay elements are absent and in the end, gives the game a low score.
A game needs to be judged by its own merits. That is, whatever the developer advertises the game to be (usually on the game box there will be a description of the game along with a feature list). Using that description and that feature list, the game can be judged at how well they are implemented... and even using other current games of the same genere for comparisons is ok... as long as those comparisons make sense.
In conclusion to a review, I find it acceptable for a reviewer to make commeents about what he or she felt would have improved the game... that is ok.
What is not ok is when the bulk of a review is about unmet expectations, and only a small part of the review, if any, about the actual merits of the game.
_________________
The Poster Previously Known As NeptiOfPovar |
|
Fri Mar 14, 2003 11:30 pm |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
An interesting article.
I've been watching Lionheart lately and I think this illustrates the point. Lionheart uses the SPECIAL system developed for Fallout so the boards are full of vitriol over the choice of real-time combat instead of turn-based combat.
Players have the right to dislike turn-based combat but the underlying problem is they refuse to allow Reflexive to develop Lionheart as they envision it, instead wanting Lionheart to be their vision - Fallout in a Fantasy setting. |
|
Fri Mar 14, 2003 11:47 pm |
|
|
Lord_Brownie
High Emperor
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
Posts: 575
Location: Unfashionable arm of the spiral galaxy |
What do we judge a game by? Its alot of things, and not liking it because it isnt in our vision is fine and legitimate way to judge it. I piece of art has too much orange for my taste I dont like it; what am I supposed to do, i cant repaint it, its his image--no proplem, we all have defferent expectations for different things. Games are not different. If a review says i'm a fps player, this rpg was not like an fps, thus I didnt like it, or it needed that-so what? He gave me all the elements I needed to decide that my tastes for games where not like his, and I should take the responiblity for myself to seek out those closer to my views and read what they have to say. I dont go to Team Fortress Classic sites to read reviews of EQ! If managment of X company whats to loose my business by not having an rpg reviewer I relate to, so what? We all have to find knowledge for ourselves (We all live as we dream, alone). Do folks complain too much about games instead of just trying to enjoy them? Yes! They complain too much about life, TV, movies, other people complaining, and everything else, instead of just trying to enjoy stuff. I can name a game that I didnt like because it didnt met my expectations; most recently AC2, I thought it was just flat out boring-did it met the makers 'vision'? Sure, no npcs (starting out anyway), great graphics, and mostly player made stuff. In the end though their vision was lame for me (a rpg server might have kept me longer). Of course I didnt run to thier measage board and post what the problems are with the game. I didnt like Quake, either, I wanted a new doom at the time, and Quake wasnt it. What problem is there with me not likeing it? If I thought the graphics where bad would that be a more legitimate reason not to like it? No. I only have internal reasons to judge games, and my 'vision' for it is just is a ligitmate reason as a technical one. Anther thing comes to mind, if a games take alot of power away from the consumer-EULAs keep most games from being returned (even duds like "diakatana". If power was given to cunsumers so that they had a way out of a bad game, maybe some of the bad posts would stop. however, until they even the playing field having a $50+ dollar reminder of a failure on your desk is surely going to provoke so negative feed back-both warrented and unwarrented. One last thing: We all have expectations about all things. It is human nature, instead of trying to change it, I try to understand it, know its powers and its limits. I cant make everyone like things they way I like them, no more than I can make them hate the things I hate. The most I can hope for is some good dialogue about either of things.
LB
P.S. Call me a hypocrite if you want, but in a week or two i'm going to ask in off topic forums how those here playing "Freelancer" is going before I go buy it. I figure folks here are going to have closer views on it than those at a freelance website. |
|
Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:02 pm |
|
|
Ekim
Eagle's Shadow
Joined: 27 May 2002
Posts: 2365
Location: Montreal, Canada |
quote:
Originally posted by Lord_Brownie
What do we judge a game by? Its alot of things, and not liking it because it isnt in our vision is fine and legitimate way to judge it.
Of course you can not like a game because its "Vision" does not correspond to your liking. As I mentioned it's quite legitimate. But can you say that a game is crap because it didn't meet your own vision, like so many people do? I myself don't think so. You could be in complete disagreement with the game's Vision but still admit that the game itself is well done and enjoyable for those who don't have similar feelings as yours. All your examples were valid, but on the field some players are very vocal about their own Vision. Just wait when SWG comes out and we'll get a good taste of what I mean 
_________________
=Proud Father of a new gamer GIRL!=
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Worshiper of the Written Word= |
|
Mon Mar 17, 2003 4:03 pm |
|
|
Lord_Brownie
High Emperor
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
Posts: 575
Location: Unfashionable arm of the spiral galaxy |
(I try not to be so long and boring on this post  )
If the vision doesnt line up and one thinks the game is 'crap' how else do they judge it by? Normaly, I think most games have some merit; there are some type of games I just dont like). Realy, its normaly not a difference of vision that makes me not like a game, but poor production values or just not the right type of game for me. Does that make it bad, to me yes. Using that as a opening to attack the makers is wrong, though; maybe thats what you are getting out.
LB |
|
Tue Mar 18, 2003 3:28 am |
|
|
Ekim
Eagle's Shadow
Joined: 27 May 2002
Posts: 2365
Location: Montreal, Canada |
quote:
Originally posted by Lord_Brownie
Does that make it bad, to me yes. Using that as a opening to attack the makers is wrong, though; maybe thats what you are getting out.
LB
Yes That you do not like a game does not mean that a game is crap, or has no value. I didn't like Warcraft 3, but I can honestly say that it's still a good game for those who enjoy the genre. On the other hand, some games are crap, but then you have to have other more general and founded reasons to say that it's crap, simply saying that you don't like a game isn't enough What you don't like, someone else might loves.
_________________
=Proud Father of a new gamer GIRL!=
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Worshiper of the Written Word= |
|
Tue Mar 18, 2003 2:27 pm |
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:17 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
